Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-04
HON. JAMES q. JONES.
Speech on the Bill to Aid in the Is.
adjustment and Temporary Sup.
port Of Common Schools.
The Idea that Home Rule is Necessary to
Freedom and Prosperity Prominently
Brought Out.

Following is the speech of Mr.. Jones of
Texas delivered in the House OF Represen-
tatives Saturday, January %, 1887, on the
bill to aid in the establishment and tenn
porary support of common schools:
Mr.. Chairman: The Blair educational
bill proposes to distribute among the
states, the territories and District of
Columbia, according to the illiteracy of
their inhabitants, $40 900, 900 within eight
years under the CONDITIONS defined in the
bill. This. in my opinion, is the most i'm
portant measure brought before this
Congress, and one that deserves most
careful and deliberate investigation. The
first question to be determined is,
whether Congress has the power under
the constitution to pass this bill? 1t can
not be questioned that if the federal gov
eminent has power TO provide by an
appropriation of money from the ftde raj
Treasury for the education of the Hitter
ates in the states, it has also, and it be-
comes its duty, 10 follow up the money
and see that it is properly and legiti--
mately used.
From the power to appropriate springs,
necessarily, the dover to direct how the
appropriation shall be expended, and in
this bill bOth the power to appropriate
money and direct how it shall be used by
the states is asserted. If the general
government has the power to provide
for the education of the people of the
states and education promotes the gene
raj welfare of the Uuited States, then it
becomes the duty of Congress to levy and
collect taxes for educational purposes in
the states, and adopt a syste m of en-
forced education, if necessary, as well as
TO pay the debts and provide for the COM
mon defense.
But the inquiry arises, has the federal
government such power? | think not.
The tsXing power of the federal govern
ment is limited to the purposes of paying
the deots and providing for the common
defence, for the promotion OF The general
welfare of the United States. But it can
not be exercised for the collection and
distribution of money among the states
for local benefits, nor for the general
welfare, for that implies the power to
compel the states to accept the trust and
execute it under laws enacted by the tax
ing power. The general welfare clause
IN the section S article l of the conSti u
ton is not substantive general power,
but is limitation on the grant OF power
TO raise money by taxes, duties, impOst-,
and excuses to pay debts and provide for
the common defense.
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
oy ii to the states, are reserved to the
states, respectively, or to the people.
IL therefore follows that the powers
that the states may COnstitutiOnally eXer-
else the federal government can not con
stitUtionally exercise. 1t cannot be said,
with any legal prOpriety, that the states
did not reserve to themselves the great
mass of the business Of government. TIE
c8Te and regulation of the social reia
lions, the mental and moral culture of
their inha2ltantS, the development of
every local interest within the borders,
the preservation Of order and peace
among GEeir people, the right and duty
20 provide for the weak and unfortunate
members of society are powers and du-
lies thus reserved to the states. The
constitution does no. expressly or by i'm
pliCation prohibit the states from eXer-
Cising The fullest control over these mat
ters. Nor are any of these powers or
duties, by express or implied grant in the
constitution, transferrtd from the states
TO the general government. No one of
the enumerated powers in the Constitu-
tion touches the subject under discussion
or ha3 any relation To it.
The powers granted to the United
States AMI the powers prohibited to the
st4tes were sucn as were necessary for
the preservation If the harmony and
friendly relations that should subsist be-
tween the states and for the protection
of their common interests against for
eigd enemy or in~urrectiOn a home. Mr..
Madison, in the Federallst, said:
The powers delegated by the proposed
constitution are few and defined. Those
which are to remain inthe state govern
ments are numerous and indefinite. lis
(the general government's) jurisdiction
extends to certain enumerated objects
only and leaves to the several states re-
siduary and inviolsble sovereignty over
al other objects.
The states conferred no power in the
constitution on the general government
over local subjects. They did not intend
that there should be doubt about the
powers conferred, but hey "detned" the
powers they intended to grant to the gen.
eral government. 1t is a violation of the
rights of the states and usurpstion of
power for Congress to legislate
on local subjects. If the states
we're all consenting and ask
ing for the passage of this bill, in the sb
sence of constitutional power in Con-
gress to make the appropriation, our
votes should be "no." We should re
member that this is government of law
and that consent cannot give jurisdlc-
ton" 1t will produce friction and di
turb the harmony of our dual system and
weaken it.
Pre- sideut Jackson said:
That our true str myth and wisdom
are not promoted by invasions of the
rights and powers of the several states;
but, on the contrary, that they consist
not in binding the states more closely TO
the center but III leaving each more I'M
obstructed in its proper orbit.
In the case Of the United States VS..
Cruik-hanks (92 U. S. R, page $50 the
cou says:
The people of the United States, resi-
dent within a state, are subject to TWO
governm' nts-one state, the other ma
tiongl But there need be no conflict be-
tween the two. The powers which one
possesses the other does not. They are
established for different purposes.
The same power can not exist in both
the general government and the states at
the same time. Will it be commended by
the friends of the bill that the general
government, the mere creature of the